This Week Our Main Discussion Will Focus On Explaining ✓ Solved

This week our main discussion will focus on explaining and

This week our main discussion will focus on explaining and evaluating the deontological ethical theory as discussed in Chapter 4 of the textbook. Your instructor will be choosing the discussion question and posting it as the first post in the main discussion forum.

The requirements for the discussion this week include the following: You must answer all the questions in the prompt and show evidence of having read the resources that are required to complete the discussion properly (such as by using quotes, referring to specific points made in the text, etc.). All postings (including replies to peers) are expected to be thought out, proofread for mechanical, grammatical, and spelling accuracy, and to advance the discussion in an intelligent and meaningful way. You are also encouraged to do outside research and quote from that as well. Please carefully read and think about the entire prompt before composing your first post.

This discussion will require you to have carefully read Chapter 4 of the textbook, as well as the assigned portions of Immanuel Kant’s (2008) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant’s text and the textbook discuss two formulations or ways of expressing Kant’s Categorical Imperative, the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity. For each formula, Kant considers four test cases to explain how it applies: Suicide, False Promises, Cultivating One’s Talents, and Beneficence.

Engage with the text: Choose one of these test cases (it can be from either formula), and explain in your own words the reasoning that leads to the conclusion Kant defends. You should first explain the Categorical Imperative itself, focusing on the particular formula you are considering, and then carefully show how that principle leads to a particular conclusion.

Reflect on the theories: Would a utilitarian come to a different conclusion? If so, explain why. If a utilitarian would come to the same conclusion in this case, could there be a variation in the case that would lead the utilitarian and Kant to come to different conclusions?

Reflect on yourself: Do you agree with Kant’s conclusion? If not, explain the flaws in his reasoning. If you do agree, and you think a utilitarian would come to a different conclusion in this or a slightly varied case, why do you think that Kant’s reasoning is superior to the utilitarian’s?

Paper For Above Instructions

Deontological ethical theory, primarily articulated by Immanuel Kant, emphasizes the importance of duty and adherence to moral rules. This approach posits that the morality of an action depends on whether that action itself is right or wrong, rather than on the consequences of the action. Central to Kant's deontological theory is the Categorical Imperative, which is a foundational principle that dictates that one should act only according to maxims that can be universally applied. This means that an action is moral if it can be adopted universally without contradiction.

Kant introduces two formulations of the Categorical Imperative: the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity. The Formula of Universal Law requires that one should only act in accordance with maxims that could be willed as a universal law applicable to everyone. For example, when considering the test case of making a false promise, if one were to make a promise intending not to keep it, the maxim could be universalized to suggest that everyone can break promises. However, if this were to be universally applied, the very concept of a promise would lose its meaning, leading to a contradiction. Thus, making a false promise is deemed immoral according to Kant’s reasoning (Wood, 1999).

On the other hand, the Formula of Humanity mandates that one should treat humanity, whether in oneself or another, always as an end and never merely as a means. This implies that actions should respect and value the intrinsic worth of all individuals. In this context, cultivating one’s talents is essential. Kant argues that neglecting to develop our own abilities not only disrespects our potential but also fails to contribute to the greater good of society.

When considering the question of whether a utilitarian would arrive at a different conclusion, it is evident that Kant’s position diverges significantly from utilitarian thought. Utilitarianism evaluates the morality of actions based on the outcomes they produce. A utilitarian may argue that a false promise could be justifiable if it results in a greater overall benefit, such as helping someone avoid harm (Singer, 1979). This highlights a primary tension between the two ethical perspectives: while Kantian ethics relies on adherence to moral duties, utilitarianism focuses on achieving the best consequences.

However, if we delve deeper, it's plausible to consider scenarios where Kant and a utilitarian might coincide in their conclusions. For instance, if the consequences of making a false promise were overwhelmingly detrimental, even a utilitarian might agree with Kant’s condemnation of the act. This suggests that while the frameworks differ, circumstances might lead them to parallel judgments in specific instances (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019).

Personally, I find myself more aligned with Kant’s deontological perspective. I believe that moral actions should not solely be evaluated based on their outcomes. The integrity of maintaining promises and treating individuals as ends in themselves aligns with my understanding of ethical behavior. While utilitarian reasoning can lead to favorable outcomes in some cases, it can also pave the way for justifying morally questionable actions if the ends are perceived as justifiable by a majority. An example is the justification of harm for the sake of greater societal benefit, which can lead to morally problematic situations (Thomson, 1986).

One flaw in Kant’s reasoning can be the rigidity of his formulations. Real-life complexities sometimes present scenarios where adhering strictly to moral laws may not produce the best outcomes. For instance, in the case of a person hiding a friend from a potential murderer, strictly adhering to the principle of not lying could have fatal consequences. However, I still assert that Kant's emphasis on duty and inherent human dignity offers a robust framework for ethical discourse.

In summary, Kant’s deontological theory offers essential insights into moral philosophy by promoting adherence to ethical duties and respect for human dignity. While my perspective acknowledges the importance of preventing harm—a notion central to utilitarian thought—Kant’s categorical imperatives provide a framework that is, in my view, more universally applicable and principled. The insights into the Categorical Imperative, particularly through the test cases Kant provides, reveal significant ethical considerations relevant to our understanding of moral actions, making his theory a potent part of ethical discourse.

References

• Bengtson, V. L., Acock, A. C., Allen, K. R., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D. M. (2005). Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research. SAGE Publications.
• Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, P. (1979). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Thomson, J. J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory. Harvard University Press.
• Wood, A. W. (1999). Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Intergenerational Solidarity. Annual Review of Sociology.
• Dwyer, J. W., Lee, J., & Jankowski, P. (1994). Intergenerational Relations and Family Policy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
• Parrott, T. & Bengtson, V. L. (1999). Theoretical Perspectives on Intergenerational Solidarity. In V. L. Bengtson et al. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research.
• Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. Wiley.